Sexual harrassment fraud

Sexual harrassment fraud - Sat Dec 09, 20171:01 PM

How about the women stick to their God given role for a start:

"... train the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sober-minded, chaste, workers at home, kind, being in subjection to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed: (Titus 2:4-5, ASV)

They are to be homemakers, not housewives. They are to love their husband, and children and make a loving home for them.

What about the proper time line of an actual sexual attack and the reporting?

"If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them to death with stones; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife: so thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee." (Deut 22:23-24, ASV)

The principle is clear, if you are attacked and/or harassed; you cry out at the time, not 5, 10, 30 or 40 years later! As far as Hollywood goes, everyone knows it's a cesspool of filth and the 'casting couch' is infamous for male as well as female. They made a trade, so take the blame upon themselves. The same for politics, again a cesspool, and those wishing to climb the ladder to power, they make the trade off. This all assumes anything even happened in the first place. In the 1960s when I was a young guy, I had a married woman for whom I'd made a home repair, complain to her husband that I was made a sexual advance toward her, a blatant lie. I was grilled like a criminal at the company and thought I'd lose my job. I could have easily cleared it up by 'outing' myself as the 100% exclusively homosexual male that I was/am; but this was the 1960s, that would have probably lost my job anyway. Then, the latter part of my working life I was in factories where many women worked. They are generally more raunchy mouthed and sexually offensive then the men are. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, which proves the rule. So for me, I don't care if the so-called sexual harassment took place or not; if it was not reported at the time, it should be ignored as having ulterior motives other than correcting a perceived wrong. A couple of modern English translations when comparing Gen.3:16 to Gen. 4:7 have come up with a correct translation of 3:16. From the 2016 edition of the ESV:

"To the woman he said, 'I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.'” The men of the 19th century should have put a 2X4 against the head of that nutcase Carrie Nation when she intruded into their bars with her hatchet. Then men went so far as to give the women the vote in 1920 so they can now be contrary to their husbands with power. Now they are taking over the justice systems and exerting power in legislatures and even running for President. There is no way the USA can survive this continual decline of the society and nation. If any think I am extreme, then explain how facts and truth have changed since the writings of the Presbyterian theologian Robert L. Dabney:

Re: Sexual harrassment fraud - Mon Dec 11, 20178:25 PM

Although Scripture does have very clear prescriptions regarding the place and roles of men and women, and the subjection of women to men, there is no shortage of contention over these issues.

Of course, the abuse of women is not condoned by Scripture, but these days, this dead horse is flogged beyond recognition due to the ascendance of Third Wave feminism.

Feminism (all three waves) has no place in the church, or in Christian families. The reason for the subjection of women to men is based on creation, both pre- and post-lapsarian (1 Tim. 2:13, 14). That there is a post-lapsarian basis for this means that God takes into account that men are fallen creatures, and that there will be instances of abuse; in other words, this was prescribed in His divine wisdom. Call it a necessary evil, if you will, but let us remember that God is good and only wills, and can only do good.

Even reason, and the nature of things, support the subjection of women to men.

- Women are generally physically smaller and weaker than men.- Women are designed for gestastion, birth, and nurture of children.- Women are less suitable for positions of leadership, determination, and objectivity. (Women and men are characterized differently by the well-received Five Factor Model in psychology.)

Societies that have woman politicians, teachers, lawyers, doctors, scientists and engineers, and many women in the workforce, have generally suffered in quality of life: lower family wages (two breadwinners instead of one, for almost the same total earnings); children that grow up badly nurtured (weak-willed men, and women who are unprepared for motherhood); broken or single-parent families (no-fault divorce, family court rulings significantly skewed in favor of the wife, birth control and legal abortion!); increasingly serious health problems such as obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease (related to the thriving market for processed food because home cooking is difficult to manage with two working parents); and to top all this, the curse of more mental illness, as seen in the social justice/socialist/leftist scourge.

The removal of the social stigma that used to be attached to extra-marital sex, abortion and divorce, and the political empowerment of women, have seriously destablilized Western civilization.

There is still time to repent, and repent we must.

As for conservatism, its very setup is designed for noble capitulation—it celebrates "principled" failure ad nauseam. Dabney understood the nature of the beast. Parallel to Republican in Name Only RINOs, there are Reformed in Name Only RINOs that are a plague in the PCA, OPC and many other Calvinistic denominations.

Re: Sexual harrassment fraud - Tue Dec 12, 20171:27 PM

Goldenoldie, you write as a man with formal higher education. I'm pleasantly surprised at the response, since I was expecting the roof to cave in on me with my post about the current uproar over supposed sexual harassment. In my post, I had not included comments on the question posed by the accusations against Judge Roy Moore in particular, the girl's claim of her age of 14 when Judge Moore was supposed to have been so wicked. I've often wondered about the 'age of consent' and the variations on it around the world, and through history. My thinking runs like the following.

Who sets the standards of morality, man's changing culture, nature, or the God of nature? I've noticed the highly sanctimonious condemnations concerning the unproven accusations against Judge Roy Moore, referencing the girl's age of 14. Man's laws set ages of consent, but do man's laws define morality? All my life I've heard that the Virgin Mary was 13 or 14, in her early teens when betrothed to Joseph who was supposedly considerably older. I don't know where any age is given in the Bible for suitability in marriage and the consummation thereof. It seems to come from knowledge of the culture in biblical times. Is there an agreed upon age suitability in Christian teachings down through the centuries? Speaking specifically of the age, I've found the following in a very conservative work.

In Vol. 4, page 228, Dr. Hoenecke addresses suitable age for marriage and he refers to Justinian and states: "Males may marry if they have reached puberty (and females if they are sexually mature)..."

Justinian (6th Century) is quoted or paraphrased in this theological textbook written approx. 1900; and then reprinted in 2000. At least in this very conservative Lutheran viewpoint, marriage is suitable once puberty is reached. When you research the age of consent in the nations of the world, you find ages as low as 12 and 13, not considering Islamic cultures. These ages must have been set by reference to puberty, so does the Bible give another age that is the moral age of consent? I've never seen one.

Re: Sexual harrassment fraud - Tue Dec 12, 20175:31 PM

The issue of sexual harassment in our society is very voliatile.There is no doubt that it is going on; however it appears many men are losing their jobs and their reputations by just being accused of sexual harassment. No charges, no court case, etc, this is very concerning. Tom

Re: Sexual harrassment fraud - Tue Dec 12, 20177:36 PM

Oh, Ned. I foolishly rushed in where angels fear to tread. Since I've already entangled myself, I might as well pontificate further

But seriously, the issues that I wrote about have been in my mind and in my heart for many years. I think I understand where you're coming from.

Who sets the standards of morality, man's changing culture, nature, or the God of nature?

God, of course. However, in this matter, the comparitive quietness (I prefer this word to 'silence') of Scripture indicates that pragmatic concerns weigh in as well, without denying that God's laws must not be violated in any case.

If indeed Judge Moore did have sex with girls that are underage according to Alabama law (I don't believe he did), then he would have truly broken a legitimate law, as well as committed the sin of fornication. However, a man is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Without incontrovertible evidence or an admission of guilt (an out-of-court settlement moves in this direction), any accusations of sexual harassment or assault must remain mere allegations.

My opinion regarding 'age of consent'

In pre-industrialized societies that were dependent on hunting, agriculture or animal husbandry, having many children was essential for survival. Girls were taught how to cook, keep house and perform chores on the farm, and boys were taught farming, hunting, building, and fighting. People recognized that puberty signalled the coming of readiness to procreate and thus increase the numbers of the tribe. Many societies devised rites of passage to mark the induction of boys into manhood, and ceremonies for the induction of girls into womanhood. These, together with cultural marriage protocols, regulated the act of procreation to control the socially destructive proclivities of man, and to protect children, who were a valuable asset. Marriage was reserved for men and women, not children.

The more culturally advanced societies thus regulated marriage, and often set it up in two stages: bethrothal and the actual marriage, after which consummation was sanctioned.

"Roman citizens are bound together in lawful matrimony when they are united according to law, the males having attained the age of puberty, and the females a marriageable age, whether they are fathers or sons of a family; but, of the latter, they must first obtain the consent of their parents, in whose power they are."

Comparing this to your source, it appears that when females have attained a marriagable age, they are sexually mature. I believe that the latter is a paraphrase of the former. There is indeed no specified age of consent.

In the place of primitive societies' consensus-based recognition of manhood and womanhood, modern Western countries set a minimum legal age of consent to regulate sexual activity. This seems reasonable to me, and does not appear to contradict God's moral law. Since this legal age must encompass all reasonable estimates of the age of sexual maturity, it cannot be set too low. If you think that the specific age of 15, for example, is arbitrary, I would agree. Laws of this type, in which a number is chosen as a standard, are inherently arbitrary. Nonetheless, in the eyes of God, the law is obligatory to Christians.

The Islamic custom of child brides is another matter. Nature and basic human decency dictate that children be protected from sexual abuse. It is one thing to bethroth children, and another to engage in sexual behavior with prepubescent children under the cover of marriage or religion. Pedophiles deserve to have a millstone hung about their necks, and be cast into the sea!

Re: Sexual harrassment fraud - Wed Dec 13, 20171:09 PM

I wish to clarify my short quote out of the Evangelical Lutheran Dogmatics by Adolf Hoenecke. I had noticed Senator Shelby's remark about Judge Roy Moore and his moral indignation about the age 14 in the accusation. That age is surely illegal, but I was focusing on the question of morality apart from the age of consent setting which varies from State to State and nation to nation. I had also seen a headline that read "accused pedophile" Judge Roy Moore. That is a false headline because pedophilia refers to "a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children".

But, back to the quote out of Adolf Hoenecke, I doubt anyone on this Reformed site knows the man or his work. So, let me clarify. He was German and this had been translated from German into English. Also, the section where I quoted just the statement on age, also contained the limitations of not only law, but also of parental consent which had the ultimate say on such matters. It is odd, when thinking of what constitutes "sexual harassment", a seemingly unrelated old saying came to mind: "One man's trash is another man's treasure".

I've written about all I have to contribute on this matter. I have been away from the Discussion Board for a good while and have been wrestling with some things in life. I hope to post in relation these things soon.